Petitioner challenges Ext.P3, an order passed by the Lok Adalath rejecting his claim against the 2nd respondent Insurance Company. Since the factual issues were disputed, the Lok Adalath proceeded to pass an award. One of the main contentions urged on behalf of the insurance company is the absence of notification under Clause 2(c) of the policy conditions. According to the insurance company, unless such a notice is received, they will not be in a position to assess the loss suffered by the petitioner and since no such notice was received, they were unable to verify the genuineness of the claim and assess the loss. In fact, the petitioner relied upon Ext.P4 to contend that the Insurance Surveyor, on the request of the 2nd respondent, has conducted a survey in respect of the vehicle involved in the accident and Ext.P4 is the bill issued by the Surveyor.
2. Learned senior counsel appearing for the 1st respondent would however submit that Ext.P4 is with W.P.C.No.18924/2012 2 reference to the policy in respect of the vehicle and not a claim with reference to the loss of goods during transit which is covered by another policy.
3. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that sufficient notice had already been given to the 1st respondent, finding of the Lok Adalath clearly indicates that there is no material to show that clause 2(c) had been complied with. Though not within ten days or twenty days as the case may be, the petitioner ought to have informed the insurance company about the loss within a reasonable time. Even to prove such a fact, no material is produced before the Lok Adalath.
Under such circumstances, I do not think that there is any infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Lok Adalath and accordingly there being no merits in the writ petition, the same is dismissed.
(sd/-) (A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE) jsr W.P.C.No.18924/2012 3